[HN Gopher] September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
___________________________________________________________________
September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
Author : 037
Score : 144 points
Date : 2025-02-22 19:58 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nps.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nps.gov)
| chiph wrote:
| If you get the chance to visit Independence Hall in Philadelphia,
| it's a must-see. Book your tickets in advance as they frequently
| sell out.
| jmclnx wrote:
| It is too bad the current crop of pols are ignoring all these
| documents and setting up to steal assets from working and poor
| people.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| I believe when this document was written, the only people
| allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude.
| The document was written by people who were actively amassing
| wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no
| mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial
| benefits.
|
| The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a
| constitutional republic with the ability to modify the
| constitution when desired by a majority of the republics
| representatives. That was path breaking at a time when the
| world was steeped in feudal politics.
| chasil wrote:
| As far as I would think, each state could set their own
| requirements for voting, and some ownership of land was also
| a requirement from what I remember.
|
| So Google suggested "who could vote in 1789" and the top
| result was from the Regan library.
|
| https://reagan.blogs.archives.gov/2022/03/29/road-to-the-
| vot...
|
| Reading...
|
| "The most common requirements for voter eligibility was that
| each prospective voter had to be a white male who owned
| property of a certain dollar value.
|
| "...by the time of the 1828 Presidential Election, the
| majority of the land-ownership requirements were eliminated
| from state laws. The final state to remove the property
| requirement was North Carolina in 1856, just five years
| before the Civil War began.
|
| "...Certain states went through cycles where the right to
| vote was granted, removed, and re-granted to ethnic
| minorities over the course of decades... In 1870, the
| Fifteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to all American
| men regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of
| servitude." The right to vote was now Federally defined, but
| it would take one-hundred years of historical, social, and
| political developments for the VRA to universally enshrine
| it."
| jdougan wrote:
| That essay is not well worded. They're confusing property
| in general with land specifically, with wasn't universal
| across the States. As I understand it, some States'
| property requirements could be met with non-land assets.
| See [1] for an interesting overview of the situation in New
| Jersey. The following quote makes no sense if property was
| restricted to land-only:
|
| > Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is
| entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass
| dies. The man in the meantime has become more
| experienced...and he is therefore better qualified to make
| a proper selection of rulers -- but the jackass is dead and
| the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen...in whom is the right
| of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"
|
| > -- Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, taken from "The
| Casket, or the Flowers of Literature, Wit and Sentiment,"
| 1828
|
| [1] https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/when-women-
| lost-...
| apercu wrote:
| > The document was written by people who were actively
| amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but
| make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its
| initial benefit
|
| Fair, but the document was written 200 years ago and society
| evolves....
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| > I believe when this document was written, the only people
| allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude.
|
| No, the rules for who could vote were determined by the
| individual States. Women and Africans could vote in New
| Jersey when this document was written, for example.
|
| Later Constitutional amendments made the practices much more
| consistent across States. Something to keep in mind is that
| people voting for Presidents and Senators is a 20th century
| invention, voting rights were much more local back then.
| relaxing wrote:
| A couple interesting references in this article-
|
| - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name
| behind Gerrymandering
|
| - The proposal to increase the size of the House of
| Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people
| to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it
| much harder to gerrymander, among other things.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Right now it's not even one for every 40,000. The size of the
| house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress.
|
| One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result
| in 8,500 reps in the House.
| kiba wrote:
| I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical
| issue with the current building though.
|
| 1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.
| saulpw wrote:
| What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local
| representatives elected their set of ~435 national
| representatives?
| kiba wrote:
| I am not sure why you think thousand of representatives
| are inherently difficult to manage.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| Consider that for each representative you add, each
| individual representative becomes less influential and
| has fewer opportunities to affect change. While I do
| believe the house should be larger, perhaps 600
| representatives, once the house gets too large you simply
| won't be able to allocate speaking time on the floor in a
| reasonable way.
|
| The house would organize itself around voting blocs and
| certain representatives would naturally end up exercising
| an undue amount of sway because they control those blocs.
| With each individual representative having much less
| influence, they'd have no choice but to gang together to
| try and achieve something.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| You're _almost_ describing the Senate as originally
| configured.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-
| foundations/electing-ap...
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be
| exactly the right amount of representation.
|
| Not only would there be much more accurate representation,
| and much more accountable representation, it would also be
| much more difficult to bribe enough
| vkou wrote:
| The reps _actively_ seek bribes, because they need campaign
| warchests.
|
| Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't
| going to change.
|
| Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem
| is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will
| destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious
| leader.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| I would put it like this-- politics is a business. Being
| _good_ at that business sometimes is simply about
| vilifying your opponents or taking stubborn
| uncompromising positions on issues that cry out for
| cross-aisle collaboration. When you brag about it in
| podcasts and mailers, people send you money, and that is
| good _business_ , regardless of public policy.
| vkou wrote:
| None of that matters when the king wants your head for
| crossing him.
|
| When given the choice between opposing Trump and making
| bad choices in governance, the people who did the former
| _all_ lost their jobs, while the people who did the
| latter were all rewarded.
|
| And that's how you get the current congressional crop.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| I actually think the advantage is that it is
| significantly more realistic to fund a campaign for a
| 40,000 size seat than a couple hundred thousand, so it's
| easier to have upstart campaigns from third parties.
| linguae wrote:
| This is very interesting to think about, though. What if
| there were many more representatives? It doesn't have to be
| one for every 40,000, but suppose there were 2,000
| representatives. Of course there are logistical challenges to
| increasing the number of representatives, such as needing an
| increased budget for legislators' salaries, as well as having
| sufficient space for all of the legislators to meet.
|
| I do see potential benefits to having more representatives,
| though I'm not a political scientist and these may just be
| educated guesses and aspirational hopes:
|
| 1. Since each representative's constituency would be smaller,
| we may see a greater mix of political reviews reflected in
| the House of Representatives, since larger constituencies may
| have an "averaging" effect.
|
| 2. It may be harder for special interests to exert their
| influence on 2,000 representatives compared to 435.
| Simultaneously, it may be easier for everyday people to
| influence their representatives since each district is
| smaller in population. Consider the impact somebody living in
| a small town has on government there, compared to someone
| living in a large city.
|
| 3. Related to #2, it may be harder for political parties to
| impose their will on representatives since they have a lot
| more people they have to influence.
|
| 4. If there were more opportunities for everyday people to
| serve as elected officials, then perhaps people may feel more
| invested in their government rather than seeing government as
| a distant entity that runs counter to the well-being of
| society. This could serve as an effective counter to the
| disaffectedness we see in modern American society.
|
| Once again, though, these are just educated guesses.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do
| nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to
| get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on
| house members at the state level, and have enough
| representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the
| reps
| klipt wrote:
| Proportional representation as used by many parliamentary
| democracies solves gerrymandering.
| aqueueaqueue wrote:
| Quite the sliding door moment
| jmyeet wrote:
| Spoiler: we could not in fact keep it.
|
| The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is
| not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country
| descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought.
| The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery.
| Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the
| form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is
| resurgent.
|
| As someone wh grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s, I rreally wish
| there was a way for younger people to experience that. There were
| problems, of course. The Cold War and the threat of nuclear
| annihilation loomed large. Homophobia was worse. Racism was
| worse.
|
| Many, myself included, describe the 1990s as the last good
| decade. Standard-of-living peaked in 1972 [1] but even in the
| 1990s, things were still pretty good. Rent was cheap, housing was
| cheap, food was cheap. There were houses in the 1990s for under
| $100k that now sell for $2M+. I lived frugally but comfortably on
| $10k/year as a student, including renting a 2 bedroom apartment.
|
| I cannot adequately express my view of how dire things are now.
| We are bouldering towards neofeudalism. There is no opposition.
| Nobody is coming to save us.
|
| [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-
| most-...
| mmooss wrote:
| > There is no opposition. Nobody is coming to save us.
|
| Of course. It depends on the people - either we oppose it and
| save us, or nobody will. That's the nature of democracy.
|
| If you expect someone else to do it, that is, in a way,
| 'neofeudalism' - you are docile while some powerful person does
| things.
| tomrod wrote:
| We can reclaim it.
| mullingitover wrote:
| This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington
| _pleading_ for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell
| address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home:
|
| > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened
| by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in
| different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid
| enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at
| length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders
| and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to
| seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual;
| and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more
| able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this
| disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of
| public liberty.
|
| > ...It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which
| find a facilitated access to the government itself through the
| channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one
| country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
|
| He could've written this last week.
|
| [1]
| https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/W...
| yibg wrote:
| Unfortunately people as a mass, don't tend to learn from
| history. Or at least forget the lessons from history fairly
| easily. Maybe we are doomed to repeat the same historical
| lessons.
| mmooss wrote:
| The US has been a 'democratic republic' for almost 250 years,
| so many generations have learned.
|
| Such government has thrived in every culture and place, from
| East Asia to South Asia to almost all the Americas, many
| parts of Africa, Europe of course. Somehow, democracy works
| exceptionally well - far better than any alternative ever has
| - and is resiliant.
|
| ... unless the people are somehow convinced that it is not,
| that it is not important, and they despair and give up.
| themgt wrote:
| > The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations
| is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as
| little political connection as possible. So far as we have
| already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect
| good faith. Here let us stop.
|
| > Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none,
| or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in
| frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially
| foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in
| us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary
| vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and
| collisions of her friendships or enmities.
| akio wrote:
| > So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be
| fulfilled with perfect good faith.
|
| A key part.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Sure was a simpler time. Now we have Russia pointing nuclear
| weapons at all our major population centers, and the
| engagements we have with a number of our allies against this
| nation are _not_ being fulfilled, in _bad_ faith.
| bobxmax wrote:
| Two parties, each controlled entirely by corporate interests
| ferrying out puppets for the populace to choose from
|
| The American republic is failing in exactly the ways Plato and
| Socrates would've predicted it would.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-22 23:00 UTC)